Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the learned Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded party. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Inspector of police has conducted an enquiry in respect of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, committed against the petitioner. He wrongly concluded that a false complaint stands preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation. 3. In answering the prayer seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, PCR Unit, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, towards registration of the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.01.2014 for the offence under Sections 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court has directed as follows: “6. Accordingly, this Court directs the Inspector of Police, B-5, South Gate Police Station, Madurai to investigate the complaint and if there is a prima facie case made out and if any cognizable offence is made out, the case can be registered. In case of closure of the complaint, it is open to them to forward the same to the complainant to take appropriate action in accordance with law.” 4. Though the prayer of the petitioner in such petition sought a direction to the Inspector of Police, the present contention of the petitioner is that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 has not been followed. Merely because, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Inspector of Police and such a direction stands obeyed, Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which requires appointment of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, found up to the task to investigate the offences under the Act, cannot be ignored. 5. Paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court dated 11.02.2014 makes clear that the direction of this Court is towards conduct of preliminary enquiry. Even in conducting preliminary enquiry, the logic of Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is to be followed. 6. 5. Paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court dated 11.02.2014 makes clear that the direction of this Court is towards conduct of preliminary enquiry. Even in conducting preliminary enquiry, the logic of Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is to be followed. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court would direct as follows: “The Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed in keeping of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rule shall conduct a preliminary enquiry upon the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.01.2014. In doing so, he may also consider the earlier enquiry and report of the Inspector of Police. Upon completion of such preliminary enquiry, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police may proceed to register a case for offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2014, if facts and circumstances warrant. Otherwise, he may drop the proceedings. In either event, he shall cause notice to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.